>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> rdf:li AND rdf:_1 AS TYPES (reserving rdf: namespace)
> ==========================
> <snip/>
> In contrast, in rdfcore/rdf-ns-prefix-confusion/test08.rdf the
> rdf:aboutEachPrefix attribute is ignored.
These tests have yet to be updated after later decisions - where the
tests would live, the dropping of aboutEachPrefix from the language
and the formal definition of the test file language.
>
> Could you clarify what the correct processing of things from the rdf:
> namespace is when they are not recognised or do not make sense.
>
> The original spec gave clear instructions:
>
> 'When an RDF processor encounters an XML element or attribute name that
> is declared to be from a namespace whose name begins with the string
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax" [SIC] and the processor does not
> recognize the semantics of that name then the processor is required to
> skip (i.e., generate no tuples for) the entire XML element, including
> its content, whose name is unrecognized or that has an attribute whose
> name is unrecognized.'
The rdf: namespace does not point at that URI so that paragraph does
not apply to any rdf: element or attribute in the XML. It might have
been a mistake and intended to apply to rdf-namespaced things, but as
written, does not.
> In contrast, the intent of the Working Group seems to be that an RDF
> processor should treat an unrecognised or not understood Qname from
> rdf:XXX just like it would treat any other Qname (e.g. as a type or a
> property). So that now rdf:aboutEachPrefix must be specially recognised
> in order to be ignored!
I feel this is a bit silly. When writing my parser, I wrote a
reference of what defined use of rdf: items were explicitly in the
syntax, written in the prose or allowed by rules (e.g. syntax
abbreviations):
RDF and RDF Schema Concepts Reference
http://www.redland.opensource.ac.uk/notes/concepts.html
Using syntax constructs like rdf:Description as a property, while
technically allowed since it matches the Qname of the grammar, is
IMHO meaningless and should remain so.
> <snip more stuff>
Rest was answered by Brian in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2001Jul/0046.html
Dave